Balk called. Pitch was thrown and was put in play. Ball dead and runners awarded one base from time of pitch? The count doesn't change on the batter?

I believe in NFHS the ball is automatically dead so the count should stay what it was before the pitch was delivered. In MLB the runners can advance but if they don't it is called dead and the runners are awarded a base. Batter comes back at same count.

Balk called. Pitch was thrown and was put in play. Ball dead and runners awarded one base from time of pitch? The count doesn't change on the batter?

If you're playing under NFHS rules, the balk KILLS THE PLAY IMMEDIATELY. There is no pitch, there is no action subsequent to the balk call. All runners advance one base from where they were at the start of the play, and the count remains the same.

I am wondering why our bench got a warning. In an ACME game which I assume is played under NFHS rules-we had bases loaded when the other team tried a trick play where the pitcher fakes the throw to 2nd base, the 2B and SS and CF all dive like the ball is getting away from them but the pitcher still has the ball. We didn't fall for it. Guys on our bench were laughing and cheering when the umpire gave us the warning. None of the players knew why. He told me (first base coach) just root for your team.I thought that's what we were doing. Thing is our starting pitcher really struggled in the 1st inning, hitting 2 batters and walking 2 guys and their bench was really hooting and hollering about that-no warning given to them...so just wondering what the rule would be that he gave us a warning for?

Question: if a coach attends the pre-game meeting at home plate, does that make him the "head coach", and then the umpire can refuse to talk to anyone but him? I read it differently.

Under NFHS rules, unless he/she is tending to a sick or injured player, hasn't arrived at the field, or is incapacitated for other (good) reason (radio/TV interview) the Head Coach is required to attend the plate conference.

If he does not attend the conference and none of the aforementioned apply, he remains head coach, but is restricted to the dugout for the entire game.

I am wondering why our bench got a warning. In an ACME game which I assume is played under NFHS rules-we had bases loaded when the other team tried a trick play where the pitcher fakes the throw to 2nd base, the 2B and SS and CF all dive like the ball is getting away from them but the pitcher still has the ball. We didn't fall for it. Guys on our bench were laughing and cheering when the umpire gave us the warning. None of the players knew why. He told me (first base coach) just root for your team.I thought that's what we were doing. Thing is our starting pitcher really struggled in the 1st inning, hitting 2 batters and walking 2 guys and their bench was really hooting and hollering about that-no warning given to them...so just wondering what the rule would be that he gave us a warning for?

Have no idea why..... Perhaps he felt the activity in the dugout was beginning to cross the line of sporting/unsporting conduct?

AllSports.....where in the rule book does it clarify that rule under 3-2-4? It simply says "....,if available" I see nothing that specifies what is "unavailable"
What if a coach was ill? In a conference with a parent? Fixing a piece of equipment?

My thought is that if I send an assistant up there and he says "I need to handle the pre-game meeting, the head coach is unavailable" that should be good enough. It doesn't then mean that the assistant is now the head coach, nor does it mean that the ump may ONLY talk to that assistant. Your thoughts?

In 3-3-1(f)(6), it refers to the fact that the head coach (or designee)may talk to the umpire. This indicates that if I send a "designee" to the plate, and then I return later, I don't "lose" my position as head coach. I simply had someone fill in for me while I was not "available" (my designee), and now I'm back.

It is a poorly written rule, in my opinion, that allows both a coach and an umpire to interpret it differently. No one's fault but those who wrote the rule.

Please note also, that the rule says that a coach may not leave the box or the dugout area to "dispute a judgment call by an umpire"....that is a LOT of interpretation. What if I want to ask the umpire WHAT he called, because I missed it (real situation here). Didn't DISPUTE the call, just wanted to ask the umpire what happened because he didn't see it; His response was "I don't have to talk to you"......doesn't say that anywhere in the rule.

While it seems like I'm just on here grinding an axe, I can say that I don't think the rule is set up so that an umpire can say "I don't have to talk to you"....it is set up to prevent several coaches from getting all over an umpire so he doesn't know who he has to deal with. A coach asking him a question is NOT a violation of this rule.

AllSports.....where in the rule book does it clarify that rule under 3-2-4? It simply says "....,if available" I see nothing that specifies what is "unavailable"
What if a coach was ill? In a conference with a parent? Fixing a piece of equipment?

My thought is that if I send an assistant up there and he says "I need to handle the pre-game meeting, the head coach is unavailable" that should be good enough. It doesn't then mean that the assistant is now the head coach, nor does it mean that the ump may ONLY talk to that assistant. Your thoughts?

When this rule was implemented in 2008, it was done soe because of the increasing occurrences of unsporting behavior during contests. The rules committee felt that the pregame meeting was being taken for granted as only an exchange of lineups and saw the opportunity to emphasize the importance of sporting behavior to the head coaches.

Now, it's impossible to list all situations in our rule books. The rule specifies that unless tending to a sick or injured player, the coach must attend. Naturally, there are other instances where a coach is present but won't be able to attend...... talking to a parent, fixing equipment, or being in the bullpen (which was detailed when the rule came out) isn't one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTaxMan

In 3-3-1(f)(6), it refers to the fact that the head coach (or designee)may talk to the umpire. This indicates that if I send a "designee" to the plate, and then I return later, I don't "lose" my position as head coach. I simply had someone fill in for me while I was not "available" (my designee), and now I'm back.

It is a poorly written rule, in my opinion, that allows both a coach and an umpire to interpret it differently. No one's fault but those who wrote the rule.

You are reading way too much into this. A "designee" only comes into play when the coach is not available for an acceptable reason.

Please note also, that the rule says that a coach may not leave the box or the dugout area to "dispute a judgment call by an umpire"....that is a LOT of interpretation. What if I want to ask the umpire WHAT he called, because I missed it (real situation here). Didn't DISPUTE the call, just wanted to ask the umpire what happened because he didn't see it; His response was "I don't have to talk to you"......doesn't say that anywhere in the rule.

While it seems like I'm just on here grinding an axe, I can say that I don't think the rule is set up so that an umpire can say "I don't have to talk to you"....it is set up to prevent several coaches from getting all over an umpire so he doesn't know who he has to deal with. A coach asking him a question is NOT a violation of this rule.

Here's the segment of that rule 3-3-1 (f) (6) that you refer to.... I bolded the very important part that you left out.....

"any member of the coaching staff who was not the head coach (or
designee) in 3-2-4 leaving the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to
dispute a judgment call by an umpire."

What this says is nobody but the head coach may leave the coaching box or dugout to dispute a judgment call, or even ask a question.

I am wondering why our bench got a warning. In an ACME game which I assume is played under NFHS rules-we had bases loaded when the other team tried a trick play where the pitcher fakes the throw to 2nd base, the 2B and SS and CF all dive like the ball is getting away from them but the pitcher still has the ball. We didn't fall for it. Guys on our bench were laughing and cheering when the umpire gave us the warning. None of the players knew why. He told me (first base coach) just root for your team.I thought that's what we were doing. Thing is our starting pitcher really struggled in the 1st inning, hitting 2 batters and walking 2 guys and their bench was really hooting and hollering about that-no warning given to them...so just wondering what the rule would be that he gave us a warning for?

Sometimes Umpires hear things that you may not. Or attribute things to the kids that a parent said standing next to the dugout. I've missed things being in the coaches box that kids have admitted to later. I never get upset about it. I just tell the boys to always be classy and respect your opponent.

Got what you're saying AllSport. But what if I WAS the head coach, I just didn't attend the pre-game meeting. Nowhere does it say that that coach then becomes the head coach. If someone interprets that action as a "de-throning" of the head coach from his position, I disagree.

You are also linking the "availabilty" language (incorrectly) to the "sick or injured player" .....the "sick or injured player" language has nothing to do with availability. It is the portion of the rule that says IF the coach is restricted to the bench, THEN he may return to the field to aid a sick or injured player. You are mixing the two things up.

Got what you're saying AllSport. But what if I WAS the head coach, I just didn't attend the pre-game meeting. Nowhere does it say that that coach then becomes the head coach. If someone interprets that action as a "de-throning" of the head coach from his position, I disagree.

Nowhere did I or does the rule infer this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTaxMan

You are also linking the "availabilty" language (incorrectly) to the "sick or injured player" .....the "sick or injured player" language has nothing to do with availability. It is the portion of the rule that says IF the coach is restricted to the bench, THEN he may return to the field to aid a sick or injured player. You are mixing the two things up.

Not sure where the disconnect is, but here goes......

If the coach misses the pre-game conference because he is tending to a sick or injured player, (also detailed as an example in rule interpretation meetings that most aren't privy to) that is an acceptable reason. He will not be restricted to the dugout for the duration of the game......... However if he misses the meeting for a reason not deemed acceptable, then he is restricted to the dugout for the game and may not leave said dugout during the game unless he is tending to a sick or injured player.

No, you did not infer the coach was "de-throned", as I put it. My example was that the umpire in question that I was involved in used the term "You aren't the head coach" because I didn't attend the meeting.

Your words: Under NFHS rules, unless he/she is tending to a sick or injured player, hasn't arrived at the field, or is incapacitated for other (good) reason (radio/TV interview) the Head Coach is required to attend the plate conference. Where exactly does it say ANY of this, or say anything about an ACCEPTABLE absence? And WHO makes THAT determination.

My point was that your referring to the sick or injured player is found in the penalty clause about letting the coach come out AFTER he has been penalized....YOU incorporated it in to the part about it being a REASON why a coaches absence is ACCEPTABLE to you....that is NOWHERE in the rule. And I'm guessing that if I'm dealing with an upset parent or a player, or in the john because I have a stomach illness, those aren't acceptable, but talking to a newspaper guy or TV guy is? Wow. You are creating a lot of facts that are not to be found ANYWHERE in that rule.

The rule also does not say if he misses for a reason deemed to be unacceptable. It says if he REFUSES to come to the meeting. Sorry, that's a big difference. I am taking the exact words from the rule; you are putting interpretations in all over the place.

Also, your quote:

"Any member of the coaching staff who was not the head coach (or
designee) in 3-2-4 leaving the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to
dispute a judgment call by an umpire."

"What this says is nobody but the head coach may leave the coaching box or dugout to dispute a judgment call, or even ask a question". How is it that you took the very specific "to dispute a judgment call by an umpire" and ADDED! "or even ask a questions" REALLY? And where does it say that?

My point is that it is a poorly worded rule open to much interpretation, and you've just proven my point by taking black-letter law and adding in several different of YOUR interpretations that are not found anywhere in the rules.....and have actually expanded on a very specific rule (to dispute a judgment call) and added in your own "...or even ask a question".

SO...lets talk about what the umpire should have done, and tell me if you think I'm correct:

When I went to talk to him and he said "You aren't the head coach" and I said "Yes I am", he said "No you aren't, you didn't come to the meeting" and I said I WAS in fact the head coach but I wasn't available, he should have either determined that (A) I WAS indeed reasonably unavailable and then talked to me (even if only to tell me to shut up) or (B) said, your absence from the meeting was unacceptable, you are restricted to the bench. Can we agree on this?

He did neither. He ejected me for trying to SPEAK to him. No argument on a judgement call, I just asked "I didn't see the play, can you tell me what was called" According to the rules (3-3-1)(f)(6) IF I disputed a judgment call, I would be in violation for leaving the box, IF I wasn't the head coach. And the penalty for that, under PENALTY, is that both the head coach and assistant coach should receive a written warning. (Unless my conduct was severe)

I think too many umpires may be mis-interpreting this rule to say that whoever comes out to the home plate meeting IS the head coach (a logical assumption). But to say that if the head coach later establishes HE IS the head coach, it doesn't mean the umpire can only talk to the guy who came to the home plate meeting (the designee)....

Your words: Under NFHS rules, unless he/she is tending to a sick or injured player, hasn't arrived at the field, or is incapacitated for other (good) reason (radio/TV interview) the Head Coach is required to attend the plate conference. Where exactly does it say ANY of this, or say anything about an ACCEPTABLE absence? And WHO makes THAT determination.

"in the bullpen" and "not arrived at the field" are two circumstances explicitly detailed in the 2008 NFHS Baseball Rule Interpretations. Other circumstances or excuses that are put forth are common sense based and fall under the sole authority of the Plate Umpire. As I noted prior, we have countless meetings, clinics, as well as other training sessions that include discussions related to matters like these. One reason for a coach not being at the conference, "tending to an injured or sick player" falls into the acceptable category for obvious reasons (that player is the responsibility of the HC)....... Again, not all circumstances are specifically covered in our rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTaxMan

My point was that your referring to the sick or injured player is found in the penalty clause about letting the coach come out AFTER he has been penalized....YOU incorporated it in to the part about it being a REASON why a coaches absence is ACCEPTABLE to you....that is NOWHERE in the rule.

Again, see above.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTaxMan

And I'm guessing that if I'm dealing with an upset parent or a player, or in the john because I have a stomach illness, those aren't acceptable,

you'd be guessing wrong

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTaxMan

but talking to a newspaper guy or TV guy is?

Yes....

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTaxMan

Wow. You are creating a lot of facts that are not to be found ANYWHERE in that rule.

Nowhere does it specifically address what happens if a hawk swoops in picks up a live ball and drops it into dead ball territory........ but we know how to properly rule should this unlikely event occur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTaxMan

The rule also does not say if he misses for a reason deemed to be unacceptable. It says if he REFUSES to come to the meeting. Sorry, that's a big difference. I am taking the exact words from the rule; you are putting interpretations in all over the place.

Me to the AC -- "where's the head coach?"
AC -- "He's in the bullpen watching the starter warm up"
Me -- "Go get him"
AC -- "He said for me to do this"
Me -- "Tell him if he doesn't show up, he restricted to the bench for the
game"
AC, after he communicates this to him -- "he said to go ahead"
Me -- "Fine, give me your lineup card, I'll explain to him later"

^^^^^^^ Game Management 101 ^^^^^^

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTaxMan

Also, your quote:

"Any member of the coaching staff who was not the head coach (or
designee) in 3-2-4 leaving the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to
dispute a judgment call by an umpire."

"What this says is nobody but the head coach may leave the coaching box or dugout to dispute a judgment call, or even ask a question". How is it that you took the very specific "to dispute a judgment call by an umpire" and ADDED! "or even ask a questions" REALLY? And where does it say that?

Where does it say this? >>>>>> In the rule that was also added in 2008 pertaining to Assistant Coaches. Now, do we answer questions from assistant coaches? Yes, all the time, however, they cannot leave the box, come onto the field to ask those questions. If that question is part of a dispute of a call...... he's going to get shut down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTaxMan

My point is that it is a poorly worded rule open to much interpretation, and you've just proven my point by taking black-letter law and adding in several different of YOUR interpretations that are not found anywhere in the rules.....and have actually expanded on a very specific rule (to dispute a judgment call) and added in your own "...or even ask a question".

This rule has been in effect for 10 years now. There have been exactly 0 complaints brought forth to the rules committee regarding the wording of said rule. You are looking for literal wording on this and it simply will not happen, for if it did, our rule books would look like the IRS Tax Code.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTaxMan

SO...lets talk about what the umpire should have done, and tell me if you think I'm correct:

When I went to talk to him and he said "You aren't the head coach" and I said "Yes I am", he said "No you aren't, you didn't come to the meeting" and I said I WAS in fact the head coach but I wasn't available, he should have either determined that (A) I WAS indeed reasonably unavailable and then talked to me (even if only to tell me to shut up) or (B) said, your absence from the meeting was unacceptable, you are restricted to the bench. Can we agree on this?

He did neither. He ejected me for trying to SPEAK to him. No argument on a judgement call, I just asked "I didn't see the play, can you tell me what was called" According to the rules (3-3-1)(f)(6) IF I disputed a judgment call, I would be in violation for leaving the box, IF I wasn't the head coach. And the penalty for that, under PENALTY, is that both the head coach and assistant coach should receive a written warning. (Unless my conduct was severe)

Based on your side of the story ..........

B

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheTaxMan

I think too many umpires may be mis-interpreting this rule to say that whoever comes out to the home plate meeting IS the head coach (a logical assumption). But to say that if the head coach later establishes HE IS the head coach, it doesn't mean the umpire can only talk to the guy who came to the home plate meeting (the designee)....

Again, this has yet to come up in any post season survey from any state association. You are making way too much out of this.

If I was making too much of this, I would be complaining to the State or the umpire's ruling body. I'm not. I'm discussing it in a forum with someone whom I thought might have an impartial opinion because it is an interesting (to me) topic.

I believe the umpire overreacted, didn't follow the rule, and quite honestly was somewhat hamstrung by a poorly written rule. Notice I didn't say that it is a rule that needs to be changed, I said it was poorly written.

I don't think the handbook would read like the IRS code, but I think with a little work, that rule could be "tightened up" to make sure situations like this one (and one I saw last year) don't happen again. On that point, please note that in the one last year, no one got ejected, but the umpire specifically told a coach "he was not the head coach because he didn't come to the pre-game meeting" despite the coach telling him he didn't arrive until the 2nd inning due to traffic. I'm guessing this happens, but no one brings it up because they are all confused by the specifics.

If I was making too much of this, I would be complaining to the State or the umpire's ruling body. I'm not. I'm discussing it in a forum with someone whom I thought might have an impartial opinion because it is an interesting (to me) topic.

I believe the umpire overreacted, didn't follow the rule, and quite honestly was somewhat hamstrung by a poorly written rule. Notice I didn't say that it is a rule that needs to be changed, I said it was poorly written.

I don't think the handbook would read like the IRS code, but I think with a little work, that rule could be "tightened up" to make sure situations like this one (and one I saw last year) don't happen again. On that point, please note that in the one last year, no one got ejected, but the umpire specifically told a coach "he was not the head coach because he didn't come to the pre-game meeting" despite the coach telling him he didn't arrive until the 2nd inning due to traffic. I'm guessing this happens, but no one brings it up because they are all confused by the specifics.

No sure how much more impartial I can be on here. Check out my body of work, as I am extremely critical of umpires who do not know the rules, are lazy in their efforts in working games, and carry an attitude unbecoming of an umpire.

In this situation I gave you exactly what the rule was and I indicated that if things happened exactly as you wrote, the umpire was wrong.

And again, if this was as confusing as you make it out to be, there would be discussions had, originating from the coaches association. Citing 2 instances out of roughly 19,500 games played throughout the state last year is not an indicator that the rule is poorly written or inconsistently enforced.

With that, the matter surrounding Head Coaches attending the pre-game plate conference on this forum is hereby closed. This horse has been beaten beyond recognition.

This might be have to have been there, but I will do my best to describe.

Runner at 2B. Pitcher turns and has him picked off. The runner takes off for third base. The throw is wild and as the runner slides into the base the third baseman has to dive to his right to get the ball. The ball gets by him and while he is still on the ground and trying to get up, there is contact with the runner trying to take off for home.

This might be have to have been there, but I will do my best to describe.

Runner at 2B. Pitcher turns and has him picked off. The runner takes off for third base. The throw is wild and as the runner slides into the base the third baseman has to dive to his right to get the ball. The ball gets by him and while he is still on the ground and trying to get up, there is contact with the runner trying to take off for home.

Obstruction?

Had to be there...... For obstruction to occur one of the following have to occur.....

The defensive player hindered the runner or the contact changed the pattern of play.

Had to be there...... For obstruction to occur one of the following have to occur.....

The defensive player hindered the runner or the contact changed the pattern of play.

Sometimes, you just gotta umpire !

I didn't call it, the kid made it home and scored without much of an issue. It just looked strange as the third basemen was getting up quickly (Pushup type position), the runner got tangled up a little.

When you umpire, you really need experience things in person beyond reading about them and this was a first for me in terms of the way it developed.

When a pitch strikes a batter in the hands, and no swing is taken, are the hands considered "part of the bat" ?

Ever see a bat sold with hands attached to it?

The answer to your question is always no.

If there is no attempt to strike the ball, it is a hit by pitch.
If there is an attempt to strike at the ball, it is a dead ball strike.
If the batter allows the pitch to hit him and it hits his hands, it is a dead ball and the pitch is either a ball or a strike, depending where thte ball was in relation to the strike zone.

Left handed pitcher (or any pitcher really) holds his knee up in the air without moving for more than 5 seconds (either towards first or towards home), is that a balk? He just started his delivery and is standing there like a flamingo. I've heard some umpires call balk, yet he hasn't made a move anywhere yet, so I don't see how it is a balk. Curious what others say/think as I have no idea.

Left handed pitcher (or any pitcher really) holds his knee up in the air without moving for more than 5 seconds (either towards first or towards home), is that a balk? He just started his delivery and is standing there like a flamingo. I've heard some umpires call balk, yet he hasn't made a move anywhere yet, so I don't see how it is a balk. Curious what others say/think as I have no idea.

Can you help me find this in the rules somewhere? I've been through them many times and yet I can't find anything that says "continuous move". I can find natural delivery movement, but not definition of what that means. From what I can tell from the NHSA rules (and MLB rules), hesitation isn't listed in the Balk section.

Can you help me find this in the rules somewhere? I've been through them many times and yet I can't find anything that says "continuous move". I can find natural delivery movement, but not definition of what that means. From what I can tell from the NHSA rules (and MLB rules), hesitation isn't listed in the Balk section.

Under 6-1-2, you will find the following passage for the wind up position...

"after he starts his movement to pitch, he must continue the motion without interruption or alteration."

Under 6-1-2, you will find the following passage for the wind up position...

"after he starts his movement to pitch, he must continue the motion without interruption or alteration."

Similar restrictions are noted for the set position under rule 6-1-3

Isn't the knee moving up a "preliminary" movement, as the pitcher could go to a base (1B for lefties, 3B for righties) instead of proceeding to the pitch? The pitcher's movement towards home would be the "pitching motion". If I use the definition you have above, then he could never throw to a base, due to any movement of the pitcher's front leg in general would indicates a pitching movement.

Not trying to nitpick, but trying to understand this situation. We faced it a few times and I'd like to know it's legality under the rules, one way or another.

Devil's advocate on the rules is this one from MLB Rules 5.07 (d):
"At any time during the pitcher’s preliminary movements and until his natural pitching motion commits him to the pitch, he may throw to any base provided he steps directly toward such base before making the throw."

When does preliminary movement end and natural pitching motion begin? Just because a knee is raised, the pitcher could still go to a base or begin his pitch. Does the preliminary movement end once the pitcher moves towards home? When his foot in the air either breaks beyond the rubber (i.e. Cueto)? Nothing I've seen in the rules stipulate the end of one and the beginning of the other - in regards to raising a knee. Every Ump I have spoke with has different views.